Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
in this business. he had been secretary of the navy under ronald regan and assistant secretary of defense under ronald regan and one of the most decorated veterans of vietnam. united states senator. celebrated author. lawyer. and i thought he made a pretty strong, persuasive case. so did many of us. >> let's turn to cybersecurity. i was pleased that you mentioned cyber security in your initial remarks. they have moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid o
the election. he was clearly responding to these issues, missile defense, i think particularly and maybe nuclear issue also. he was not consulting with the american people, he did not tell congress what he wanted to do but he was willing to discuss it with the russian leaders. i'm asking you, will you comply with the treaty-making matters? if these agreements are significant military liquor i believe they should be -- militarily believe they should be done by treaty and not by two leaders. >> i would commit to fulfilling any treaty obligations and commitments to congress and any conversations that congress has to be a part of, absolutely. >> i'm not sure that answers the question. congress is concerned about these negotiations going on. we don't have the -- the president made it clear that he believes in zero nuclear weapons. that is his policy for america. i think it is utterly unrealistic and that is amazing to me. that could lead us to unwise decision making. congress has a responsibility to the american people to ensure national defense. we need to know and have you share those negot
absolutely nothing about he has had the defense department is going to do with the rise of china in an era of budget cuts to the defense department he supports. it's very troubling, fred has a great way of putting this consensus reality that in a sense it doesn't matter. so did not do the job better and you can take that for granted. japan for the first time in a decade has not just her and run defense budget, modestly $1.6 billion increase. it would be nice to see it continue, but everyone watches very carefully to see the leading indicator, which is us and what we're willing to do. taiwan is a country rushing to the exit to make sure nothing comes between it and china and therefore i would argue the same credibility over whether the united states would intervene and i taiwan strait scenario, but we can expect the support and could even see treaty allies that would be required, for example, logistics and the like want to stay out of it because they question whether we are committed to it and it said it would drag them in and leave them exposed to the situation in which stability had to st
in the discretionary category to the defense spending. i simply say unless they have to come to the realization that unless we can address our mandatory spending, which is running away with the budget and ever shrinking ability to make decisions about how we as discretionary spending, and left to get control of that, everybody will fall short of what they want. so i'm not debating whether more money should go into medical research versus building bridges for infrastructure or whatever. i'm simply saying all of that is squeezed and therefore asking you to support your senator or senators or representatives in giving them the back don't encourage to stand up and say we have to address this for everybody loses. and that is the message of the day and now we have no election over that issue. for having a debate in congress every day over that issue. to this point, the president has not indicated postelection that he thought that it used about addressing the mandatory spending issue. and we can't get there until he dies dies because without his leadership the matter what congress called both together
that is necessary for hunting, sports, target practice, even self defense? >> it would be not legal for hunting in most states where there are limits on how many rounds you can have in a magazine. as i think you have recognized, the second amendment is not primarily about hunting. what i have been talking about is what the supreme court said in the district of columbia versus heller, which is the second amendment, the firearms and their accessories which are commonly owned by law-abiding people for legitimate purposes. i am talking about what police officers carry, what citizens carry, semi-automatic handguns. >> but those are police officers. >> they are not military, they're not coming to attack people, they are protecting people. citizens protect themselves the same when the police officers do. >> if you can rationalize a 100- round drum that someone can strap onto a semi-automatic weapon, as did in aurora, colorado, killing dozens of people there, saving lives only because it jammed, then you ought to object to the laws that have been on the books for years about machine guns. why are they
was very interesting. in my defense, a week before, two weeks before the election in 2008, i wrote a column, sort of separating myself rather severely, to use a romney word, from some of my colleagues on the right who had defected to obama, and i named them, and i said that i was going down with the mccain ship because i knew it would be going down and i wasn't going to waiver. i never imagined i would support obama over mccain. i was very strongly for mccain. i thought he was a very good man. he didn't run a very strong campaign. we seem to have a habit of doing that. but here's what's interesting about obama. if you remember the transition, he made very centrist appointments. he appointed a -- he had, for example, he kept gates at defense. he picked geithner for treasury who had worked and -- hand and glove with the bush administration through the financial crisis. he picked hillary as secretary of state, volcker was one of the major advisors. the former president of harvard, i'm getting -- summer was in treasury. these are not radical appointments. what's interesting about obama is when
national defense. >> to mr. bennett, yes or no. >> no. sequestration is the dumbest way to allocate federal resources i can think of. [applause] there are some areas where i am a republican and i can say it,w e need to increase spending. it may well be that some of them are in survivor city or whatever. [laughter] >> not according to you, man. >> there are other areas where we need to cut spending more than the sequestration number. that is what the congress is for. congress should not forfeit its responsibilities to a single number automatically set across that ignores -- >> so you would give up your leverage to get spending cuts? >> am less interested in my leveraged than solving the problems of the country. >> i did not suggest i thought it was a good idea. obviously, it is an option. >> here is the fact about this. if seat cushions or to happen, 8% from agriculture infrastructure and the month. $1 billion in the special education. $3 billion from the pentagon's defense fund. $7 billion from army operations. earth worm does some work for the defense department. they could get her in this
concerned of the fact that we are trying to nominate the secretary of defense for this country but are we dumb attain -- nominating a secretary of defense for the state of israel? i will take your answer off the air. host: that was part of the discussion yesterday. guest: absolutely. there was a lot of time spent on israel yesterday. it is a huge foreign-policy issue for the. they happen to be in the middle of an environment that is unsettled and without clear paths forward. it is a core interest of the united states. again, it is a scenario where politicians feel strongly and american voters feel extremely strongly. there were some differences of opinion but got explored yesterday. again, that is part of the point of the hearing process -- of a confirmation progress -- process, getting into areas where people have concerns. host: one of the exchanges about israel, democrat from rhode island. >> interviews and speeches, i have always said i am a supporter of israel. in some cases, i have said a -- i am a strong supporter. i think it is in my book that we have a special relationship with i
was a journalist. i did not believe i could lead to someone's defense and lead to the others defense but if i ask a question i want an answer. this is my style. i went through this thing when i was first chosen, thinking, i am not george stephanopoulos, but i was chosen for who i am and i was chosen for whatever body of work and have that i am proud of and i felt that -- the only thing i would say is different, i spent a lot of time on the questions. i crammed my head as much as i could and remembered things, but to me, i did what pointed questions and i wanted answers. we all have interviewed public figures and usually get 20 minutes and 18 minutes and you don't want to hound them over one topical item -- you cannot help but be part of this. you are looked at because of the questions you ask and what you contribute in the wake of that debate. >> there is another question having to do with the moderator's, and that was this business of, the political party is getting an answer to the question, what is the sistine mets going to be devoted to? but -- what is this 15 minutes going to be devoted to?
for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as a result of the republican party getting thrown on its heels of immigration, in 2006 i published a book on hillary clinton. >> we're right to come back. >> let me finish this point. the morning that i, i had 150 radio interviews. the book was being sent off. i did eight interviews the first day. every single one of the interviews i came on the conservative radio station and i said i am here to talk about my book. the conservative radio host would say "i do not want to talk about that. i want to talk about immigration. what's the matter with the president? what is going on?" this is supposed to be a friendly audience. they hated hillary. no conservative wanted to talk about the democrats. they wanted to distance themselves from bush. >> you are the person i turn to when i am looking for optimism about the republican future. when i think "what on earth are they doing," he makes sense of it in a way i appreciate. one of the republican governors that a lot of us are looking to is gov. bobby jindal. he makes a terrific outline of
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10